UNITED STATES' ENERGY POLICY

United States' Energy Policy

United States' Energy Policy

Introduction

In June 2001 President Bush (R) proposed overhauling the nation's energy policy. Driven by the widespread concern over energy shortages and rolling blackouts in California during the past year--and the potential for similar problems throughout the country--the Bush administration unveiled a series of measures that it believed would stabilize the nation's energy supply and stave off future crises. However, the proposals have sparked an intense partisan debate.

Virtually everyone involved in the debate agrees that California's energy woes reveal major shortcomings in national energy policy. The nation's largest state, California in June 2000 began experiencing crippling energy shortages that resulted in rolling blackouts and emergency conservation provisions. Several of the state's electricity producers were pushed to the brink of bankruptcy (Kanter, 2007). But the cause of those problems--and how to prevent their recurrence--is hotly debated. In 1996, California restructured its utilities industries, deregulating the wholesale production of energy but continuing to regulate its transmission. Over the next few years, however, the system began to disintegrate, resulting in skyrocketing prices, rolling blackouts and widespread concern of a prolonged energy shortage (Hughes, 2007).

The debate about the crisis largely centers on two fundamental issues: the appropriate role of government in the energy marketplace, and the extent to which environmental priorities should shape energy policies. The Bush administration favors minimal intervention in the energy industry. Government regulation of how utilities sell energy, supporters of the Bush plan believe, distorts the supply-and-demand workings of the economy, skewing production levels and causing energy shortages and price spikes (Hudson, 2007).

To prevent future energy shortages, stabilize consumer prices and avoid dependence on foreign energy sources, proponents say, the government should instead act to boost the supply of energy. In fact, in his energy bill, Bush proposes building more than 1,000 new power plants and trying to find additional domestic oil reserves.

However, proponents say, placing more emphasis on increasing supply does not mean disregarding all other concerns. The Bush administration claims that its proposal manages to balance the economic, environmental and national-security dimensions of energy policy.

The impact of Bush's proposals on the environment has received particular attention. Supports say that, in light of recent technological developments, oil supplies can be boosted without substantially harming the environment. However, opponents of the energy plan argue that it gives greater priority to the profit margins of Republican-friendly energy companies than to sound energy and environmental policy. They also say that it will do less to ensure future energy availability than would other approaches based on conservation or alternative sources of energy(Hirsh, 1999). In particular, environmentalists deplore the administration's intention to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. The ANWR, which some geologists believe to be oil rich, is an irreplaceable environmental treasure that would be drastically compromised by the administration's plans, environmentalists contend. Some observers also express doubt that emphasizing supply is the most efficient way of guaranteeing an adequate and affordable energy ...